On Jun 27, 2:09 pm, "Martin v. Loewis" <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote: > > I agree that there may be not much reason to port custom proprietary > > apps that are working fine and which would hardly benefit from, let > > alone need, and new Py3 features. > > In the long run, there will be a benefit: at some point in the future > (surely years from now), /usr/bin/python will be Python 3. So scripts > that use /usr/bin/python (or "/usr/bin/env python") will stop working. > As a quick fix, it might then be possible to have them run with > /usr/bin/python2. Some time more into the future, this will also stop > working, as Python 2.x won't be available anymore in the OS > distributions. If the custom proprietary app is then still used, it > better be ported. > > The same happened with other kinds of deprecations and removals through > the life of 2.x. Some applications where tied to a specific Python > release, or to a specific feature that had been deprecated. These either > needed to be ported, or dropped. > > Regards, > Martin
It should be easier to have a large number of python versions on one machine... I am realy fond of 2.5 so I am probily going to start compiling them or just include the python2.5 exe if I port stuff and settle it that way.. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
